Header Logo

Connection

Raymond Applegate to Humans

Back to Details
This is a "connection" page, showing publications Raymond Applegate has written about Humans.
Raymond Applegate
Connection Strength
1.438
Humans
  1. Allowable movement of wavefront-guided contact lens corrections in normal and keratoconic eyes. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2024 Jun; 44(4):746-756.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.087
  2. Influence of rigid lens decentration and rotation on visual image quality in normal and keratoconic eyes. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2022 11; 42(6):1204-1213.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.079
  3. Assessing the visual image quality provided by refractive corrections during keratoconus progression. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2022 03; 42(2):358-366.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.075
  4. Modeling refractive correction strategies in keratoconus. J Vis. 2021 09 01; 21(10):18.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.074
  5. Avoiding penetrating keratoplasty in severe keratoconus using a wavefront-guided scleral lens. Clin Exp Optom. 2022 01; 105(1):86-88.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.073
  6. Is an objective refraction optimised using the visual Strehl ratio better than a subjective refraction? Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2017 05; 37(3):317-325.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.054
  7. A Comparison of Three Methods to Increase Scleral Contact Lens On-Eye Stability. Eye Contact Lens. 2015 Nov; 41(6):386-90.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.049
  8. Wavefront-guided scleral lens correction in keratoconus. Optom Vis Sci. 2014 Oct; 91(10):1221-30.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.046
  9. Change in visual acuity is well correlated with change in image-quality metrics for both normal and keratoconic wavefront errors. J Vis. 2013 Nov 26; 13(13):28.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.043
  10. Factors accounting for the 4-year change in acuity in patients between 50 and 80 years. Optom Vis Sci. 2013 Jul; 90(7):620-7.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.042
  11. Optimizing wavefront-guided corrections for highly aberrated eyes in the presence of registration uncertainty. J Vis. 2013 Jun 11; 13(7).
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.042
  12. Template-based correction of high-order aberration in keratoconus. Optom Vis Sci. 2013 Apr; 90(4):324-34.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.041
  13. Change in visual acuity is highly correlated with change in six image quality metrics independent of wavefront error and/or pupil diameter. J Vis. 2012 Sep 14; 12(10):11.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.040
  14. Predicting crystalline lens fall caused by accommodation from changes in wavefront error. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2011 Jul; 37(7):1313-22.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.036
  15. Noise in wavefront error measurement from pupil center location uncertainty. J Refract Surg. 2010 Oct; 26(10):796-802.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.035
  16. Controlled induction of spherical aberration with custom soft contact lenses. Clin Exp Optom. 2009 May; 92(3):283-8.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.031
  17. Importance of fixation, pupil center, and reference axis in ocular wavefront sensing, videokeratography, and retinal image quality. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2009 Jan; 35(1):139-52.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.031
  18. Performance of wavefront-guided soft lenses in three keratoconus subjects. Optom Vis Sci. 2008 Dec; 85(12):E1172-8.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.030
  19. Dynamic simulation of the effect of soft toric contact lenses movement on retinal image quality. Optom Vis Sci. 2008 Apr; 85(4):230-5.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.029
  20. On-eye performance of custom wavefront-guided soft contact lenses in a habitual soft lens-wearing keratoconic patient. J Refract Surg. 2007 Nov; 23(9):960-4.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.028
  21. Uncorrected wavefront error and visual performance during RGP wear in keratoconus. Optom Vis Sci. 2007 Jun; 84(6):463-70.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.027
  22. Three-dimensional relationship between high-order root-mean-square wavefront error, pupil diameter, and aging. J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis. 2007 Mar; 24(3):578-87.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.027
  23. Metrics of retinal image quality predict visual performance in eyes with 20/17 or better visual acuity. Optom Vis Sci. 2006 Sep; 83(9):635-40.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.026
  24. Impact of Zernike-fit error on simulated high- and low-contrast acuity in keratoconus: implications for using Zernike-based corrections. J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis. 2006 Apr; 23(4):769-76.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.025
  25. Influence of exposure time and pupil size on a Shack-Hartmann metric of forward scatter. J Refract Surg. 2005 Sep-Oct; 21(5):S547-51.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.024
  26. Measuring visual acuity--mesopic or photopic conditions, and high or low contrast letters? J Refract Surg. 2004 Sep-Oct; 20(5):S508-14.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.023
  27. Quantifying scatter in Shack-Hartmann images to evaluate nuclear cataract. J Refract Surg. 2004 Sep-Oct; 20(5):S515-22.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.023
  28. Metrics of optical quality derived from wave aberrations predict visual performance. J Vis. 2004 Apr 23; 4(4):322-8.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.022
  29. Glenn Fry award lecture 2002: wavefront sensing, ideal corrections, and visual performance. Optom Vis Sci. 2004 Mar; 81(3):167-77.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.022
  30. Interaction between aberrations to improve or reduce visual performance. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2003 Aug; 29(8):1487-95.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.021
  31. Utilising a visual image quality metric to optimise spectacle prescriptions for eyes with keratoconus. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2023 09; 43(5):1007-1015.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.021
  32. Case Report: When Two Is Worse Than One-Stereo Imbalance in a Case of Wavefront-guided Scleral Lenses. Optom Vis Sci. 2023 05 01; 100(5):299-303.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.020
  33. Visual acuity as a function of Zernike mode and level of root mean square error. Optom Vis Sci. 2003 Feb; 80(2):97-105.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.020
  34. Are all aberrations equal? J Refract Surg. 2002 Sep-Oct; 18(5):S556-62.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.020
  35. Clinical applications of personalising the neural components of visual image quality metrics for individual eyes. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2022 03; 42(2):272-282.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.019
  36. Orientation-specific long-term neural adaptation of the visual system in keratoconus. Vision Res. 2021 01; 178:100-111.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.017
  37. Case Report: What Are We Doing for Our "20/20 Unhappy" Scleral Lens Patients? Optom Vis Sci. 2020 09; 97(9):826-830.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.017
  38. The Impact of Misaligned Wavefront-guided Correction in a Scleral Lens for the Highly Aberrated Eye. Optom Vis Sci. 2020 09; 97(9):732-740.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.017
  39. Alignment of a wavefront-guided scleral lens correction in the presence of a lens capsulotomy. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2020 12; 43(6):613-616.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.017
  40. Do Polymer Coatings Change the Aberrations of Conventional and Wavefront-guided Scleral Lenses? Optom Vis Sci. 2020 01; 97(1):28-35.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.016
  41. Comparison of Wavefront-guided and Best Conventional Scleral Lenses after Habituation in Eyes with Corneal Ectasia. Optom Vis Sci. 2019 04; 96(4):238-247.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.016
  42. Registration tolerance of a custom correction to maintain visual acuity. Optom Vis Sci. 2013 Dec; 90(12):1370-84.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.011
  43. Six just-noticeable differences in retinal image quality in 1 line of visual acuity: toward quantification of happy versus unhappy patients with 20/20 acuity. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2011 Aug; 37(8):1523-9.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.009
  44. Detecting significant change in wavefront error: how long does it take? Clin Exp Optom. 2009 May; 92(3):246-52.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.008
  45. A population study on changes in wave aberrations with accommodation. J Vis. 2004 Apr 16; 4(4):272-80.
    View in: PubMed
    Score: 0.006
Connection Strength

The connection strength for concepts is the sum of the scores for each matching publication.

Publication scores are based on many factors, including how long ago they were written and whether the person is a first or senior author.